More Tea party fun! :)
Quote
Our country might have been better off if it was still just men voting. There is nothing worse than a bunch of mean, hateful women. They are diabolical in how than can skewer a person. I do not see that in men. The whole time I worked, I'd much rather have a male boss than a female boss. Double-minded, you never can trust them.
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2012/jun/27/christian-rednecks-and-patriots-tea-party-chat/
Was it Meri or Princesca who was voting Tea Party a while ago?
Not a bad point.
My wife votes Tea Party :)
In Mississippi you'll probably find that folk's beef with the Feds goes back a little further then women voting.
Quote from: viper37 on October 15, 2012, 01:51:04 PM
More Tea party fun! :)
Quote
Our country might have been better off if it was still just men voting. There is nothing worse than a bunch of mean, hateful women. They are diabolical in how than can skewer a person. I do not see that in men. The whole time I worked, I'd much rather have a male boss than a female boss. Double-minded, you never can trust them.
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2012/jun/27/christian-rednecks-and-patriots-tea-party-chat/
Was it Meri or Princesca who was voting Tea Party a while ago?
Not then, not now, not ever. Talk about fucking insanity. :mad:
Easy there, Toots.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2012, 01:55:44 PM
My wife votes Tea Party :)
Oh wow, an Argentinian voting for something stupid. Who could have seen this coming?
:pinch:
It was Princesca. She was posting all kinds of crazy shit on Facebook. Reason why I defriended her.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 15, 2012, 02:25:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2012, 01:55:44 PM
My wife votes Tea Party :)
Oh wow, an Argentinian voting for something stupid. Who could have seen this coming?
:cool:
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2012, 02:19:55 PM
Easy there, Toots.
I'm sorry. Is insanity too strong a word? How about we go with foolish, irrational, senseless, absurd, folly, reckless, stupid, and/or crazy? That seems to fit any woman who would knowingly and consciously decide to vote for the Tea Party platform.
Hey, there are gays who still vote Republican. How's that for insanity?
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 03:08:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2012, 02:19:55 PM
Easy there, Toots.
I'm sorry. Is insanity too strong a word? How about we go with foolish, irrational, senseless, absurd, folly, reckless, stupid, and/or crazy? That seems to fit any woman who would knowingly and consciously decide to vote for the Tea Party platform.
She votes as I instruct her. She's wise enough to know that politics are man's domain.
And MEN DRIVE :contract:
Damn right. Meri just way too uppity.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2012, 03:16:56 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 03:08:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2012, 02:19:55 PM
Easy there, Toots.
I'm sorry. Is insanity too strong a word? How about we go with foolish, irrational, senseless, absurd, folly, reckless, stupid, and/or crazy? That seems to fit any woman who would knowingly and consciously decide to vote for the Tea Party platform.
She votes as I instruct her. She's wise enough to know that politics are man's domain.
And MEN DRIVE :contract:
I saw your pic. You are a fugly fat troll with a pedo stache. Was your mailorder bride really that desperate or did you corce her?
It's pedo-goatee, you stupid Polack.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2012, 03:23:40 PM
It's pedo-goatee, you stupid Polack.
Whoa, you must have a short face then.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 15, 2012, 02:25:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2012, 01:55:44 PM
My wife votes Tea Party :)
Oh wow, an Argentinian voting for something stupid. Who could have seen this coming?
:XD:
I don't get it.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2012, 03:16:56 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 03:08:12 PM
I'm sorry. Is insanity too strong a word? How about we go with foolish, irrational, senseless, absurd, folly, reckless, stupid, and/or crazy? That seems to fit any woman who would knowingly and consciously decide to vote for the Tea Party platform.
She votes as I instruct her. She's wise enough to know that politics are man's domain.
And MEN DRIVE :contract:
Ah, I see. There's the problem. The above bolded part isn't in play. Easier to control when kept stupid, aren't they? Just curious: Are you planning to let your daughter go to school past the fifth grade? Might want to consider yanking her before then, actually, now that I think about it, or maybe even homeschool her. Wouldn't want her to think that she's an equal, would we?
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 03:46:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2012, 03:16:56 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 03:08:12 PM
I'm sorry. Is insanity too strong a word? How about we go with foolish, irrational, senseless, absurd, folly, reckless, stupid, and/or crazy? That seems to fit any woman who would knowingly and consciously decide to vote for the Tea Party platform.
She votes as I instruct her. She's wise enough to know that politics are man's domain.
And MEN DRIVE :contract:
Ah, I see. There's the problem. The above bolded part isn't in play. Easier to control when kept stupid, aren't they? Just curious: Are you planning to let your daughter go to school past the fifth grade? Might want to consider yanking her before then, actually, now that I think about it, or maybe even homeschool her. Wouldn't want her to think that she's an equal, would we?
Incorrect. Best she see how fucked up everyone else is in public school so she'll value the teachings and examples at home all the more.
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2012, 03:19:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2012, 03:16:56 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 03:08:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2012, 02:19:55 PM
Easy there, Toots.
I'm sorry. Is insanity too strong a word? How about we go with foolish, irrational, senseless, absurd, folly, reckless, stupid, and/or crazy? That seems to fit any woman who would knowingly and consciously decide to vote for the Tea Party platform.
She votes as I instruct her. She's wise enough to know that politics are man's domain.
And MEN DRIVE :contract:
I saw your pic. You are a fugly fat troll with a pedo stache. Was your mailorder bride really that desperate or did you corce her?
Foul play. Unnecessary stupidity, the Pole goes back 10 yards.
Is it time to resurrect: THUNDERDOME?!
Someone contact KAP, ITBitch, and CCR.
Oh, I think Marty's set the Pole back quite a bit more than ten yards. :lol:
Man, Meri is so easy to get all frothy. I'll need to up up game up to Spicy levels though to get the required reaction.
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 03:08:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2012, 02:19:55 PM
Easy there, Toots.
I'm sorry. Is insanity too strong a word? How about we go with foolish, irrational, senseless, absurd, folly, reckless, stupid, and/or crazy? That seems to fit any woman who would knowingly and consciously decide to vote for the Tea Party platform.
Umm... I thought equal rights meant you could vote for whomever you want to vote, not whomever the feminist orthodoxy approves of.
Spicy and Ed are of course just trolling you, but I'm sure you understand this one chowderhead is not a spokesman for the tea party movement as a whole.
The magic fairy goddess will smite us all.
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 03:46:58 PM
Ah, I see. There's the problem. The above bolded part isn't in play. Easier to control when kept stupid, aren't they?
Nah, not really. She just doesn't care about politics (believe it or not, some women just have other things they care about a lot more). FWIW, the brief moments where I've gotten her to discuss politics with me, she tends to agree with me.
If I left her alone she'd probably just not vote. But she knows how important is to me so she's happy to vote and do so for the same candidates I choose.
QuoteJust curious: Are you planning to let your daughter go to school past the fifth grade? Might want to consider yanking her before then, actually, now that I think about it, or maybe even homeschool her. Wouldn't want her to think that she's an equal, would we?
:rolleyes:
She'll have whatever she wants.
When a woman is allowed to think for herself, she comes up with silly ideas like how women's suffrage ruined the country because all the women she's worked with are bitches. :nelson:
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2012, 04:30:00 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 03:08:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2012, 02:19:55 PM
Easy there, Toots.
I'm sorry. Is insanity too strong a word? How about we go with foolish, irrational, senseless, absurd, folly, reckless, stupid, and/or crazy? That seems to fit any woman who would knowingly and consciously decide to vote for the Tea Party platform.
Umm... I thought equal rights meant you could vote for whomever you want to vote, not whomever the feminist orthodoxy approves of.
:huh:
I didn't say they couldn't. Doesn't mean that I can't/won't call them stupid for it. To be perfectly clear, I think anyone who would vote for the Tea Party is stupid (not Republican, mind you, but Tea Party specifically). It's just that that party platform is intended to keep women "in their place", which makes it doubly stupid for women to vote for them.
Quote
Spicy and Ed are of course just trolling you, but I'm sure you understand this one chowderhead is not a spokesman for the tea party movement as a whole.
No, the Tea Party movement is pretty clear where they stand on a lot of these things. While this particular person isn't their spokesman, he/she isn't far off from the platform.
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 04:44:33 PM
he/she isn't far off from the platform.
Knew it!
It was a she being quoted. :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2012, 04:32:42 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 03:46:58 PM
Ah, I see. There's the problem. The above bolded part isn't in play. Easier to control when kept stupid, aren't they?
Nah, not really. She just doesn't care about politics (believe it or not, some women just have other things they care about a lot more). FWIW, the brief moments where I've gotten her to discuss politics with me, she tends to agree with me.
If I left her alone she'd probably just not vote. But she knows how important is to me so she's happy to vote and do so for the same candidates I choose.
Yeah, you've said it before. I know plenty of people (certainly not a male/female thing) who could give two shits about politics and elections. It bugs me to no end. In all honesty, I really don't care who people vote for so long as they make the effort to learn about the candidates and actually get out there and cast a ballot. I just like to give you crap for getting two votes to my one. :P
QuoteQuoteJust curious: Are you planning to let your daughter go to school past the fifth grade? Might want to consider yanking her before then, actually, now that I think about it, or maybe even homeschool her. Wouldn't want her to think that she's an equal, would we?
:rolleyes:
She'll have whatever she wants.
Sorry, this was uncalled for on my part. I'm stressed at work and it came out far more harsh than intended.
You've kind of made the point that I was (feebly) going for, which is that you may talk this game, but there's no doubt that when it comes to your daughter, all bets are off. If she decides to run for POTUS, you'll be the one handing her the microphone. :D
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 04:46:41 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 04:44:33 PM
he/she isn't far off from the platform.
Knew it!
It was a she being quoted. :contract:
Why does that matter? :huh: Stupid is stupid no matter the gender.
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 04:48:43 PM
Why does that matter? :huh: Stupid is stupid no matter the gender.
I think you'd have done a little less frothing and a little more groaning if you hadn't thought it was a man. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 04:50:29 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 04:48:43 PM
Why does that matter? :huh: Stupid is stupid no matter the gender.
I think you'd have done a little less frothing and a little more groaning if you hadn't thought it was a man. :P
I figured it was a woman, to be honest, but didn't bother to check. Hence my comment that it would be insanity for a woman to vote Tea Party. :contract:
So how again is the Tea Party so anti-woman?
BTW, does the Tea Party wish to restore Bushido?
For the record, I completely agree with Merri on this.
My tea party friend agrees, because women are catty and can't always be trusted to vote properly.
I can't believe that women would vote for anyone but Obama. He's bought their vote. They don't even have to think, just atavistically react to the free birth control trigger in their brainstems. It's a good thing that women have no concerns beyond their lady parts.
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2012, 07:49:05 AM
I can't believe that women would vote for anyone but Obama. He's bought their vote. They don't even have to think, just atavistically react to the free birth control trigger in their brainstems. It's a good thing that women have no concerns beyond their lady parts.
What did the Libertarians offer to buy your vote? Magic Beans?
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2012, 07:49:05 AM
I can't believe that women would vote for anyone but Obama. He's bought their vote. They don't even have to think, just atavistically react to the free birth control trigger in their brainstems. It's a good thing that women have no concerns beyond their lady parts.
I'm still trying to find this free birth control. Everyone keeps talking about it, but the only free birth control I've been able to find is the free condoms at the health department. Everything else has to be paid for. I wonder why it is that I can't find it. :hmm:
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 08:24:21 AM
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2012, 07:49:05 AM
I can't believe that women would vote for anyone but Obama. He's bought their vote. They don't even have to think, just atavistically react to the free birth control trigger in their brainstems. It's a good thing that women have no concerns beyond their lady parts.
I'm still trying to find this free birth control. Everyone keeps talking about it, but the only free birth control I've been able to find is the free condoms at the health department. Everything else has to be paid for. I wonder why it is that I can't find it. :hmm:
:hmm: Must be your female spatial intelligence.
Quote from: DGuller on October 16, 2012, 08:30:44 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 08:24:21 AM
I'm still trying to find this free birth control. Everyone keeps talking about it, but the only free birth control I've been able to find is the free condoms at the health department. Everything else has to be paid for. I wonder why it is that I can't find it. :hmm:
:hmm: Must be your female spatial intelligence.
Reason #24539 on why women shouldn't get the vote: They can't find their way out of a wet paper square. :(
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2012, 07:49:05 AM
It's a good thing that women have no concerns beyond their lady parts.
To be fair, many men don't have interests beyond lady parts either.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 08:24:21 AM
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2012, 07:49:05 AM
I can't believe that women would vote for anyone but Obama. He's bought their vote. They don't even have to think, just atavistically react to the free birth control trigger in their brainstems. It's a good thing that women have no concerns beyond their lady parts.
I'm still trying to find this free birth control. Everyone keeps talking about it, but the only free birth control I've been able to find is the free condoms at the health department. Everything else has to be paid for. I wonder why it is that I can't find it. :hmm:
You have to be male, spend too much time on Languish and have a tendency to pick arguments with people over technicalities; appears to work a treat.
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2012, 07:49:05 AM
It's a good thing that women have no concerns beyond their lady parts.
I wonder why I would be disenfranchised by a party that feels that half the population shouldn't get the same healthcare as the other half. Especially when the entire premise is religious fervor from those who believe that women belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen with their mouths taped shut.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 09:04:35 AM
I wonder why I would be disenfranchised by a party that feels that half the population shouldn't get the same healthcare as the other half.
Why should everyone get the same healthcare?
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:12:50 AM
Why should everyone get the same healthcare?
Because we're all Americans, maybe? Measurement of a great society? Egalitarianism?
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 09:04:35 AM
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2012, 07:49:05 AM
It's a good thing that women have no concerns beyond their lady parts.
I wonder why I would be disenfranchised by a party that feels that half the population shouldn't get the same healthcare as the other half. Especially when the entire premise is religious fervor from those who believe that women belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen with their mouths taped shut.
What party is this again? :huh:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:15:00 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:12:50 AM
Why should everyone get the same healthcare?
Because we're all Americans, maybe? Measurement of a great society? Egalitarianism?
I don't see how our system could afford to send everyone to the top docs / I don't think the top docs are able to take on a limitless amount of patients.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:17:07 AM
I don't see how our system could afford to send everyone to the top docs / I don't think the top docs are able to take on a limitless amount of patients.
Healthcare coverage is more than selecting a physician, you know that. Healthcare is an economic construct.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:21:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:17:07 AM
I don't see how our system could afford to send everyone to the top docs / I don't think the top docs are able to take on a limitless amount of patients.
Healthcare coverage is more than selecting a physician, you know that. Healthcare is an economic construct.
Sure but part of getting the same quality of healthcare is access to those top physicians. My father has that Massachusetts healthcare and though it gets him covered to have a bunch of basic visits - it isn't really the same as the healthcare that I have access to through my insurance company...if only because I can generally get appointments sooner and my physicians don't treat me like a gov't assistance patient.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 09:15:01 AM
What party is this again? :huh:
That'd be the Tea Party pushing against allowing women access to necessary medications because it goes against their religious edicts.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:12:50 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 09:04:35 AM
I wonder why I would be disenfranchised by a party that feels that half the population shouldn't get the same healthcare as the other half.
Why should everyone get the same healthcare?
Sorry. I forgot to put the word "basic" in there. Mea culpa.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 09:26:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:12:50 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 09:04:35 AM
I wonder why I would be disenfranchised by a party that feels that half the population shouldn't get the same healthcare as the other half.
Why should everyone get the same healthcare?
Sorry. I forgot to put the word "basic" in there. Mea culpa.
ER's? :lol:
Besides if you are going to troll with emotional rhetoric, you should at least get it right. ;)
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:24:13 AM
Sure but part of getting the same quality of healthcare is access to those top physicians. My father has that Massachusetts healthcare and though it gets him covered to have a bunch of basic visits - it isn't really the same as the healthcare that I have access to through my insurance company...if only because I can generally get appointments sooner and my physicians don't treat me like a gov't assistance patient.
You and he both have an established baseline of a quality of care level, regardless of provider. And that's the whole point: that there is a provider involved, where it's the state or your industry-insider provider, which is better than Mittens' new alternative of ambulances and emergency rooms.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 09:25:22 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 09:15:01 AM
What party is this again? :huh:
That'd be the Tea Party pushing against allowing women access to necessary medications because it goes against their religious edicts.
That's not really a party, dear. It sounds like you're confused as to what the Tea Party movement even is.
Like most Languishites, it looked like you pretty much take whatever it is you hate the most about the GOP (whether real or imagined) and use it as the reason you hate the Tea Party.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 09:40:42 AM
Like most Languishites, it looked like you pretty much take whatever it is you hate the most about the GOP (whether real or imagined) and use it as the reason you hate the Tea Party.
One enables the other.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 09:40:42 AM
That's not really a party, dear. It sounds like you're confused as to what the Tea Party movement even is.
Like most Languishites, it looked like you pretty much take whatever it is you hate the most about the GOP (whether real or imagined) and use it as the reason you hate the Tea Party.
Wait. So are you trying to claim that the more socially conservative bent that the Republicans are heading toward isn't due to the immense influence of the Tea Party movement?
And I'm not confused. The Republican party have made it very clear that they would repeal Obama's law forcing larger companies to include a major portion of medical care for women in their insurance packages for their employees. Or are you saying that isn't the case?
'Necessary medications'? That there is some overblown rhetoric.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:36:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:24:13 AM
Sure but part of getting the same quality of healthcare is access to those top physicians. My father has that Massachusetts healthcare and though it gets him covered to have a bunch of basic visits - it isn't really the same as the healthcare that I have access to through my insurance company...if only because I can generally get appointments sooner and my physicians don't treat me like a gov't assistance patient.
You and he both have an established baseline of a quality of care level, regardless of provider. And that's the whole point: that there is a provider involved, where it's the state or your industry-insider provider, which is better than Mittens' new alternative of ambulances and emergency rooms.
And his baseline is much worse than mine. I'm going to ignore your last sentence as there isn't anything new there.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 10:12:31 AM
Wait. So are you trying to claim that the more socially conservative bent that the Republicans are heading toward isn't due to the immense influence of the Tea Party movement?
I guess. Sure, why not.
What I'm saying is that the Tea Party movement is not based upon social issues.
QuoteAnd I'm not confused. The Republican party have made it very clear that they would repeal Obama's law forcing larger companies to include a major portion of medical care for women in their insurance packages for their employees. Or are you saying that isn't the case?
That they want to repeal Obamacare? Yes. That it's some ploy to steal health benefits away from women? No.
Quote from: Neil on October 16, 2012, 10:14:55 AM
'Necessary medications'? That there is some overblown rhetoric.
Oh?
Other reasons to take the pill (http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill)
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 10:32:22 AM
That they want to repeal Obamacare? Yes. That it's some ploy to steal health benefits away from women? No.
Not Obamacare. I'm talking about Obama requiring companies to follow IOM guidelines for women's health, including catholic-owned companies. That's a seperate thing entirely.
Beyond that, I believe strongly in universal healthcare in the US, so I'm probably not going to vote for a candidate that wants to withdraw the law.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 10:21:25 AM
And his baseline is much worse than mine. I'm going to ignore your last sentence as there isn't anything new there.
Of course you'll ignore it, as it's your candidate's preferred healthcare option at the moment.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 10:37:02 AM
Not Obamacare. I'm talking about Obama requiring companies to follow IOM guidelines for women's health, including catholic-owned companies. That's a seperate thing entirely.
Ah, that. I think a lot of sensible women realize they can afford the $10 a month for berf control pills (if they want to use them in the first place) and don't want to force others to pick up the tab.
I have a problem with your line of thinking, which seems to be that all other women's big priorities in life *must* be the same as your own.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 10:44:42 AM
I have a problem with your line of thinking, which seems to be that all other women's big priorities in life *must* be the same as your own.
That's our Derfetus: Derfender of Derwomen. :hug:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 10:48:51 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 10:44:42 AM
I have a problem with your line of thinking, which seems to be that all other women's big priorities in life *must* be the same as your own.
That's our Derfetus: Derfender of Derwomen. :hug:
And you're the white savior of black folks, Count DeMarshallDavis :hug:
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 10:44:42 AM
Ah, that. I think a lot of sensible women realize they can afford the $10 a month for berf control pills (if they want to use them in the first place) and don't want to force others to pick up the tab.
I have a problem with your line of thinking, which seems to be that all other women's big priorities in life *must* be the same as your own.
It's $10/month with insurance. It's quite a bit more without (ranging from $50-175/month depending on the pill). And the insurance increase to include that in the package is less than $5/month per family. Given the alternative uses for birth control that affect a significant number of women and has nothing to do with preventing pregnancy, I think that's a fair cost. After all, Viagra is covered without concern.
I don't believe that all women must think as I do, nor that my priorities must be theirs. I recognize that the use of birthcontrol is not a serious concern for a lot of women, but yes, I do believe that the inequity of it should be a major concern. Any party that feels that half the population's health isn't as important as their religious codes should be seriously checked, and I don't get how that doesn't factor into a reasonable person's political psyche.
I want free male birth control too. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 10:37:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 10:21:25 AM
And his baseline is much worse than mine. I'm going to ignore your last sentence as there isn't anything new there.
Of course you'll ignore it, as it's your candidate's preferred healthcare option at the moment.
It is overblown rhetoric and what it is describing isn't new. Obamacare is still fairly new.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 10:44:42 AM
I have a problem with your line of thinking, which seems to be that all other women's big priorities in life *must* be the same as your own.
I don't see how that is worse than being a man deciding what should be the priorities for women. :mellow:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 16, 2012, 11:00:29 AM
I want free male birth control too. :)
I mentioned the free condoms at the Public Health office, didn't I? :unsure:
Seriously, though, if there was a pill for men, you could bet that it would be covered. <_<
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 10:57:14 AM
After all, Viagra is covered without concern.
Because Viagra can serve procreative purposes? That doesn't seem particularly hypocritical for a catholic institution. Closest comparison in function would be vasectomies and I think they do often have issues covering those.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 11:05:10 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 10:57:14 AM
After all, Viagra is covered without concern.
Because Viagra can serve procreative purposes? That doesn't seem particularly hypocritical for a catholic institution.
It doesn't serve a major purpose beyond that. In other words, it's not a medically-necessary medication and it is covered. It's one of the biggest arguments against the requirement, that birth control isn't medically-necessary.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 11:05:01 AM
Seriously, though, if there was a pill for men, you could bet that it would be covered. <_<
By Catholics? Probably not.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 11:06:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 11:05:10 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 10:57:14 AM
After all, Viagra is covered without concern.
Because Viagra can serve procreative purposes? That doesn't seem particularly hypocritical for a catholic institution.
It doesn't serve a major purpose beyond that. In other words, it's not a medically-necessary medication and it is covered. It's one of the biggest arguments against the requirement, that birth control isn't medically-necessary.
Actually it can serve purposes like for PAH.
Anyway, I think yes it is silly to ban birth control on the grounds that it doesn't have medically necessary reasons but can understand that organizations whose members hold life sacred would be miffed that they have to provide it.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 11:03:04 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 10:44:42 AM
I have a problem with your line of thinking, which seems to be that all other women's big priorities in life *must* be the same as your own.
I don't see how that is worse than being a man deciding what should be the priorities for women. :mellow:
Who's doing that?
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 11:09:57 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 11:03:04 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 10:44:42 AM
I have a problem with your line of thinking, which seems to be that all other women's big priorities in life *must* be the same as your own.
I don't see how that is worse than being a man deciding what should be the priorities for women. :mellow:
Who's doing that?
Many republicans.
It's pretty retarded that religious folks would want to deny access to birth control in a country where abortion is legal.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 16, 2012, 11:13:16 AM
It's pretty retarded that religious folks would want to deny access to birth control in a country where abortion is legal.
Not really. If you think that using birth control is contrary to the tenets of your faith, wouldn't you find it problematic to be forced to dispense it? And aren't these same people also against abortion? See: Mississippi
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 11:09:22 AM
Actually it can serve purposes like for PAH.
Anyway, I think yes it is silly to ban birth control on the grounds that it doesn't have medically necessary reasons but can understand that organizations whose members hold life sacred would be miffed that they have to provide it.
I can understand it, too, but it's not fair to hold female employees hostage to the religious contraints of their employer. The system makes it impossible to find an alternative. Since the majority of insured individuals pretty much have to use employer insurance for coverage, allowing them to opt out just isn't fair to the women in their employ.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 11:23:25 AM
I can understand it, too, but it's not fair to hold female employees hostage to the religious contraints of their employer. The system makes it impossible to find an alternative. Since the majority of insured individuals pretty much have to use employer insurance for coverage, allowing them to opt out just isn't fair to the women in their employ.
I totally agree.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 11:16:09 AM
Not really. If you think that using birth control is contrary to the tenets of your faith, wouldn't you find it problematic to be forced to dispense it? And aren't these same people also against abortion? See: Mississippi
Well, if you believe life begins at conception then one of those is murder and the other isn't.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 16, 2012, 11:30:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 11:16:09 AM
Not really. If you think that using birth control is contrary to the tenets of your faith, wouldn't you find it problematic to be forced to dispense it? And aren't these same people also against abortion? See: Mississippi
Well, if you believe life begins at conception then one of those is murder and the other isn't.
The other is still problematic. I'm not sure how because a state allows what one consider "murder" means that one should no longer care about birth control as well.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 16, 2012, 11:30:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 11:16:09 AM
Not really. If you think that using birth control is contrary to the tenets of your faith, wouldn't you find it problematic to be forced to dispense it? And aren't these same people also against abortion? See: Mississippi
Well, if you believe life begins at conception then one of those is murder and the other isn't.
You're simplifying it too much. Catholics not only believe that life begins at conception. They also believe that any form of birth control goes against the biblical imperative to "Go forth and multiply."
Nobody is forcing anyone to work for a particular employer. Seems to me if the employer has some bigoted rules in the benefits they would have a more difficult time finding the best people.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 16, 2012, 12:17:50 PM
Nobody is forcing anyone to work for a particular employer. Seems to me if the employer has some bigoted rules in the benefits they would have a more difficult time finding the best people.
I'm not sure how relevant that is in an economy where many people are grateful for the jobs they can get.
Meri: both Target and Walmart offer a month supply of berf control pills for $9. No insurance required
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 12:29:53 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 16, 2012, 12:17:50 PM
Nobody is forcing anyone to work for a particular employer. Seems to me if the employer has some bigoted rules in the benefits they would have a more difficult time finding the best people.
I'm not sure how relevant that is in an economy where many people are grateful for the jobs they can get.
Thank you.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 12:36:40 PM
Meri: both Target and Walmart offer a month supply of berf control pills for $9. No insurance required
You know that not all pills are made the same, right? That the $9 pill may not be the one that best suits a woman's medical concerns?
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 10:33:30 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 16, 2012, 10:14:55 AM
'Necessary medications'? That there is some overblown rhetoric.
Oh?
Other reasons to take the pill (http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill)
Exactly. Overblown rhetoric.
They don't call it 'period-relief pill'. No, it's the 'birth-control pill', or more popularly the 'whore pill'.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 09:04:35 AM
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2012, 07:49:05 AM
It's a good thing that women have no concerns beyond their lady parts.
I wonder why I would be disenfranchised by a party that feels that half the population shouldn't get the same healthcare as the other half. Especially when the entire premise is religious fervor from those who believe that women belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen with their mouths taped shut.
Now that's a bunch of crap. My entire premise is that people who can't afford to have kids without government assistance ab initio shouldn't have children. I'm for birth control, and all that. I am especially for having the poors forcibly fed birth control, since they can't count to 28, or wear condoms.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 11:52:52 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 16, 2012, 11:30:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 11:16:09 AM
Not really. If you think that using birth control is contrary to the tenets of your faith, wouldn't you find it problematic to be forced to dispense it? And aren't these same people also against abortion? See: Mississippi
Well, if you believe life begins at conception then one of those is murder and the other isn't.
You're simplifying it too much. Catholics not only believe that life begins at conception. They also believe that any form of birth control goes against the biblical imperative to "Go forth and multiply."
Talk about simplifying.
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2012, 01:24:43 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 09:04:35 AM
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2012, 07:49:05 AM
It's a good thing that women have no concerns beyond their lady parts.
I wonder why I would be disenfranchised by a party that feels that half the population shouldn't get the same healthcare as the other half. Especially when the entire premise is religious fervor from those who believe that women belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen with their mouths taped shut.
Now that's a bunch of crap. My entire premise is that people who can't afford to have kids without government assistance ab initio shouldn't have children. I'm for birth control, and all that. I am especially for having the poors forcibly fed birth control, since they can't count to 28, or wear condoms.
Agreed on all counts (except the counting thing, since I only know a handful of women on a true 28-day cycle). Tell your leader who's trying to take that option out of the equation for women who work for religious groups.
Pretty interesting take from a libertarian. @ scips
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2012, 01:24:43 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 09:04:35 AM
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2012, 07:49:05 AM
It's a good thing that women have no concerns beyond their lady parts.
I wonder why I would be disenfranchised by a party that feels that half the population shouldn't get the same healthcare as the other half. Especially when the entire premise is religious fervor from those who believe that women belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen with their mouths taped shut.
Now that's a bunch of crap. My entire premise is that people who can't afford to have kids without government assistance ab initio shouldn't have children. I'm for birth control, and all that. I am especially for having the poors forcibly fed birth control, since they can't count to 28, or wear condoms.
Libertarians are such lovely people. I can't imagine why the people didn't elect you judge.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2012, 01:34:39 PM
Libertarians are such lovely people. I can't imagine why the people didn't elect you judge.
:D
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 01:33:51 PM
Agreed on all counts (except the counting thing, since I only know a handful of women on a true 28-day cycle). Tell your leader who's trying to take that option out of the equation for women who work for religious groups.
Birth control is a good. Even religious groups pay their employees with money, which can be exchanged for not only goods, but also services.
You should feel ashamed of yourself, what with all the spinning.
Arguments about health care insurance aside, I think Meri is still missing the point that the Tea Party movement is basically about fiscally responsible government, not social issues. Tea Party adovocates, as such, really don't really care one way or another whether or not employers, including Catholic institutions, have to include birth control in the health care plans they provide for their employees, so Tea Party influence within the Republican Party is irrelevant to that discussion. The influence of the "religious right", though, is a different story.
Even if you agree with Meri's position on health care, I think it's unfair to characterize women who disagree with it as "stupid". First, in order to agree with her, you have to agree with the proposition that the concerns of some women about having affordable access to contraceptives should trump the rights of employers to practice their religious beliefs. It seems to me that there's a fine line here between the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. I wouldn't characterize people who fall on either side of the argument as "stupid". Second, it seems to me that even a woman who comes down on the same side of that argument as Meri does could still reasonably decide to vote Republican because she agrees with the Republicans more than the Democrats on other issues, and isn't a single-issue voter.
Additionally, I have a philosophical problem with considering birth control strictly a woman's issue. A big part of the reason that we have so many unplanned pregnancies is that way too many men don't consider birth control something that they should worry about, and characterizing access to birth control as a woman's issue would tend to just reinforce that attitude.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 12:38:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 12:36:40 PM
Meri: both Target and Walmart offer a month supply of berf control pills for $9. No insurance required
You know that not all pills are made the same, right? That the $9 pill may not be the one that best suits a woman's medical concerns?
So? The generic cholesterol medicine that my health insurance would pay for back when I was carrying health insurance wasn't necessarily the best cholesterol medicine for me, either.
Quote from: dps on October 16, 2012, 01:47:07 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 12:38:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 12:36:40 PM
Meri: both Target and Walmart offer a month supply of berf control pills for $9. No insurance required
You know that not all pills are made the same, right? That the $9 pill may not be the one that best suits a woman's medical concerns?
So? The generic cholesterol medicine that my health insurance would pay for back when I was carrying health insurance wasn't necessarily the best cholesterol medicine for me, either.
I think a better argument would be that those two listed big box stores aren't easy to reach for many - especially those in cities.
Quote from: katmai on October 16, 2012, 01:34:13 PM
Pretty interesting take from a libertarian. @ scips
It's called sarcasm. I understand it's all the rage.
I do know that you can't get pregnant without fucking, barring an act of God.
Quote from: dps on October 16, 2012, 01:43:32 PM
Arguments about health care insurance aside, I think Meri is still missing the point that the Tea Party movement is basically about fiscally responsible government, not social issues.
Except it's not. As Derspeiss pointed how that people who hate the tea party, see things in that aren't necessarily there, people who support see things in that aren't there either. The Tea Party stood for very little except dissatisfaction amongst conservatives.
QuoteAsked what they are most angry about, the top four answers among Tea Party supporters who identify as angry were the health care reform bill (16 percent), the government not representing the people (14 percent), government spending (11 percent) and unemployment and the economy (8 percent).
More than nine in ten (92 percent) say America is on the wrong track, while just six percent say the country is headed in the right direction. Fifty-nine percent of Americans overall say the country is on the wrong track.
Eighty-eight percent disapprove of President Obama's performance on the job, compared to 40 percent of Americans overall. While half of Americans approve of Mr. Obama's job performance, just seven percent of Tea Party supporters say he is doing a good job.
Asked to volunteer what they don't like about Mr. Obama, the top answer, offered by 19 percent of Tea Party supporters, was that they just don't like him. Eleven percent said he is turning the country more toward socialism, ten percent cited his health care reform efforts, and nine percent said he is dishonest.
Seventy-seven percent describe Mr. Obama as "very liberal," compared to 31 percent of Americans overall. Fifty-six percent say the president's policies favor the poor, compared to 27 percent of Americans overall.
Sixty-four percent believe that the president has increased taxes for most Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans got a tax cut under the Obama administration. Thirty-four percent of the general public says the president has raised taxes on most Americans.
While most Americans (58 percent) say the president understands their needs and problems, just 24 percent of Tea Party supporters agree. Just one in five say the president shares the values of most Americans.
Only one percent of Tea Party supporters approve of the job Congress is doing, compared to 17 percent of Americans overall.
Twenty-four percent of Tea Party supporters say it is sometimes justified to take violent action against the government. That compares to 16 percent of Americans overall who say violence against the government is sometimes justified.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2012, 01:55:36 PM
Quote from: katmai on October 16, 2012, 01:34:13 PM
Pretty interesting take from a libertarian. @ scips
It's called sarcasm. I understand it's all the rage.
I do know that you can't get pregnant without fucking, barring an act of God.
That's factually incorrect, Amski.
I'm not sure what it brings to the conversation, but it's whatever it does bring, it's also incorrect.
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2012, 02:08:26 PM
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2012, 01:55:36 PM
Quote from: katmai on October 16, 2012, 01:34:13 PM
Pretty interesting take from a libertarian. @ scips
It's called sarcasm. I understand it's all the rage.
I do know that you can't get pregnant without fucking, barring an act of God.
That's factually incorrect, Amski.
I'm not sure what it brings to the conversation, but it's whatever it does bring, it's also incorrect.
:)
Quote from: dps on October 16, 2012, 01:47:07 PM
So? The generic cholesterol medicine that my health insurance would pay for back when I was carrying health insurance wasn't necessarily the best cholesterol medicine for me, either.
Apples and oranges.
The hormones are different from pill to pill. Some are good for birth control but bad for cancer. Some are bad for regulating periods, but do a great job of mitigating breast cancers concerns. They are not only a little different, they are, in fact, very different medications with very different indications.
A better analogy is should I take Aspirin, Acetametophin, or IBUprofen? They're all pain relievers, but they all have different contra-indications and different positive indications. You don't give someone suffering from an ulcer an IBUprofen or an aspirin, but a Tylenol works fine. At the same time, it's a waste of time to give IBUprofen or Acetametophin to someone who has a heart condition.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2012, 02:05:16 PM
Quote from: dps on October 16, 2012, 01:43:32 PM
Arguments about health care insurance aside, I think Meri is still missing the point that the Tea Party movement is basically about fiscally responsible government, not social issues.
Except it's not. As Derspeiss pointed how that people who hate the tea party, see things in that aren't necessarily there, people who support see things in that aren't there either. The Tea Party stood for very little except dissatisfaction amongst conservatives.
QuoteAsked what they are most angry about, the top four answers among Tea Party supporters who identify as angry were the health care reform bill (16 percent), the government not representing the people (14 percent), government spending (11 percent) and unemployment and the economy (8 percent).
More than nine in ten (92 percent) say America is on the wrong track, while just six percent say the country is headed in the right direction. Fifty-nine percent of Americans overall say the country is on the wrong track.
Eighty-eight percent disapprove of President Obama's performance on the job, compared to 40 percent of Americans overall. While half of Americans approve of Mr. Obama's job performance, just seven percent of Tea Party supporters say he is doing a good job.
Asked to volunteer what they don't like about Mr. Obama, the top answer, offered by 19 percent of Tea Party supporters, was that they just don't like him. Eleven percent said he is turning the country more toward socialism, ten percent cited his health care reform efforts, and nine percent said he is dishonest.
Seventy-seven percent describe Mr. Obama as "very liberal," compared to 31 percent of Americans overall. Fifty-six percent say the president's policies favor the poor, compared to 27 percent of Americans overall.
Sixty-four percent believe that the president has increased taxes for most Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans got a tax cut under the Obama administration. Thirty-four percent of the general public says the president has raised taxes on most Americans.
While most Americans (58 percent) say the president understands their needs and problems, just 24 percent of Tea Party supporters agree. Just one in five say the president shares the values of most Americans.
Only one percent of Tea Party supporters approve of the job Congress is doing, compared to 17 percent of Americans overall.
Twenty-four percent of Tea Party supporters say it is sometimes justified to take violent action against the government. That compares to 16 percent of Americans overall who say violence against the government is sometimes justified.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html
3 out of those 4 top things they are angry about involve money. And then 4th can't be assessed as the descriptor is ambiguous. :huh:
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/155246_392929007444400_1790802565_n.jpg)
Quote from: dps on October 16, 2012, 01:43:32 PM
Arguments about health care insurance aside, I think Meri is still missing the point that the Tea Party movement is basically about fiscally responsible government, not social issues. Tea Party adovocates, as such, really don't really care one way or another whether or not employers, including Catholic institutions, have to include birth control in the health care plans they provide for their employees, so Tea Party influence within the Republican Party is irrelevant to that discussion. The influence of the "religious right", though, is a different story.
The Tea Party platform is all about fiscal responsibility, except where it's about social issues like denying people the right to marry (God's law), re-instating religion in schools and government buildings (what the forefathers wanted), and providing healthcare for everyone (that's what charity is for). The Tea Party Platform (http://www.theteapartyplatform.com/categories/263/platform.aspx)
The truth is that I agree with a good portion of what they suggest, but then MOST people agree with a good bit of what they propose. Even Obama agrees with some of their platform ( HR-3808 (http://theteapartyplatform.com/2010/10/17/platform-item-32--repeal-hr-3808.aspx)). It's the bits where the religious right get involved where it all falls apart for me.
QuoteEven if you agree with Meri's position on health care, I think it's unfair to characterize women who disagree with it as "stupid". First, in order to agree with her, you have to agree with the proposition that the concerns of some women about having affordable access to contraceptives should trump the rights of employers to practice their religious beliefs. It seems to me that there's a fine line here between the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. I wouldn't characterize people who fall on either side of the argument as "stupid". Second, it seems to me that even a woman who comes down on the same side of that argument as Meri does could still reasonably decide to vote Republican because she agrees with the Republicans more than the Democrats on other issues, and isn't a single-issue voter.
It was a stupid comment on my part. I don't get how women could vote against themselves, but like you say, it doesn't mean that they are stupid.
QuoteAdditionally, I have a philosophical problem with considering birth control strictly a woman's issue. A big part of the reason that we have so many unplanned pregnancies is that way too many men don't consider birth control something that they should worry about, and characterizing access to birth control as a woman's issue would tend to just reinforce that attitude.
On this, we are in total agreement. I can't wait until the pill for men hit the market. That will completely change the world's perspective on this, I think.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 02:19:23 PM
3 out of those 4 top things they are angry about involve money. And then 4th can't be assessed as the descriptor is ambiguous. :huh:
That's an interesting way to spin it.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 02:36:24 PMThe Tea Party Platform (http://www.theteapartyplatform.com/categories/263/platform.aspx)
I'm pretty sure that blogger is not the guy who gets to write the official platform for them. :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2012, 02:58:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 02:19:23 PM
3 out of those 4 top things they are angry about involve money. And then 4th can't be assessed as the descriptor is ambiguous. :huh:
That's an interesting way to spin it.
Spin?
Quotehealth care reform bill (16 percent), the government not representing the people (14 percent), government spending (11 percent) and unemployment and the economy (8 percent).
All three of those that I marked in bold involve money (at least money is typically the reason I hear complaints on the health care reform)...so? :unsure:
Yeah, and you know what? Everything about the fucking government involves money. Money is single biggest factor in politics because governments run on money rather then say, candy or warm feelings. If they said their major issue was the preserving the one eyed pocket trout the lives in one stream in Utah, it'd involve money.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 16, 2012, 03:01:21 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 02:36:24 PMThe Tea Party Platform (http://www.theteapartyplatform.com/categories/263/platform.aspx)
I'm pretty sure that blogger is not the guy who gets to write the official platform for them. :lol:
How far off is it? Seems to hit the majority of things I've heard Tea Partiers talk about.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 03:10:21 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 16, 2012, 03:01:21 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 02:36:24 PMThe Tea Party Platform (http://www.theteapartyplatform.com/categories/263/platform.aspx)
I'm pretty sure that blogger is not the guy who gets to write the official platform for them. :lol:
How far off is it? Seems to hit the majority of things I've heard Tea Partiers talk about.
The Tea Party isn't actually for anything besides not liking the President. It has no central committee, or guiding body. It's just old people who are unhappy cause they heard that communists were going to take over the country on the radio.
Raz went a little crazy with it, but he has a something of a point. The Tea Party is not some centralized movement, and can vary region by region and certainly by individual. That makes them a bit harder to pin down on every issue.
Having said that, the one thing that tends to unite nearly all Tea Party types is the desire to cut (or at least freeze) government spending and influence.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2012, 03:08:57 PM
Yeah, and you know what? Everything about the fucking government involves money. Money is single biggest factor in politics because governments run on money rather then say, candy or warm feelings. If they said their major issue was the preserving the one eyed pocket trout the lives in one stream in Utah, it'd involve money.
:huh:
What are you going on about now. What I responded to was when you told dps that the tea party isn't about fiscal responsibility.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2012, 02:05:16 PM
Quote from: dps on October 16, 2012, 01:43:32 PM
Arguments about health care insurance aside, I think Meri is still missing the point that the Tea Party movement is basically about fiscally responsible government, not social issues.
Except it's not.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 03:23:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2012, 03:08:57 PM
Yeah, and you know what? Everything about the fucking government involves money. Money is single biggest factor in politics because governments run on money rather then say, candy or warm feelings. If they said their major issue was the preserving the one eyed pocket trout the lives in one stream in Utah, it'd involve money.
:huh:
What are you going on about now. What I responded to was when you told dps that the tea party isn't about fiscal responsibility.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2012, 02:05:16 PM
Quote from: dps on October 16, 2012, 01:43:32 PM
Arguments about health care insurance aside, I think Meri is still missing the point that the Tea Party movement is basically about fiscally responsible government, not social issues.
Except it's not.
It's a leap from "Fiscally responsible government" to "involving money". That secret service-hooker scandal "involved money", but only an idiot would think it involved "fiscally responsible government"
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 03:21:39 PM
Raz went a little crazy with it, but he has a something of a point. The Tea Party is not some centralized movement, and can vary region by region and certainly by individual. That makes them a bit harder to pin down on every issue.
Having said that, the one thing that tends to unite nearly all Tea Party types is the desire to cut (or at least freeze) government spending and influence.
This may be the problem. The self-described Tea Party Republicans around here are primarily socially conservative who's only obvious "platform" is to oust Obama. They occasionally discuss fiscal responsibility, but it almost always involves lowering taxes for everyone and cutting/privatizing all entitlements. Basically, they appear to be fiscal libertarians and social fascists.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2012, 03:29:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 03:23:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2012, 03:08:57 PM
Yeah, and you know what? Everything about the fucking government involves money. Money is single biggest factor in politics because governments run on money rather then say, candy or warm feelings. If they said their major issue was the preserving the one eyed pocket trout the lives in one stream in Utah, it'd involve money.
:huh:
What are you going on about now. What I responded to was when you told dps that the tea party isn't about fiscal responsibility.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2012, 02:05:16 PM
Quote from: dps on October 16, 2012, 01:43:32 PM
Arguments about health care insurance aside, I think Meri is still missing the point that the Tea Party movement is basically about fiscally responsible government, not social issues.
Except it's not.
It's a leap from "Fiscally responsible government" to "involving money". That secret service-hooker scandal "involved money", but only an idiot would think it involved "fiscally responsible government"
I'm sorry that my language was not precise. I meant - if you look at 3 of the 4 items they listed all clearly have to do with fiscal responsibility (though admittedly the economy one less so). And once again that 4th can't really be determined as the label is too vague.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 02:36:24 PM
It was a stupid comment on my part. I don't get how women could vote against themselves, but like you say, it doesn't mean that they are stupid.
I think I've posted on this point before, but I'm not exactly convinced that people
should vote in their own best interest. Hypothetical question: if there was a proposed law that, if enacted, would be of great benefit to you personally, but you sincerely believed would be detrimental to the interests of the country as a whole, would you support or oppose the passage of that law? If the answer is that you would support it, would you concede that you are being selfish and/or irresponsible?
Also, turn the question around, so that the proposed law is harmful to you personally (in both cases, let's say that any benefit or detriment is strictly financial) but you believe would be beneficial for society as a whole--does that change your answers?
Quote from: dps on October 16, 2012, 03:46:36 PM
I think I've posted on this point before, but I'm not exactly convinced that people should vote in their own best interest. Hypothetical question: if there was a proposed law that, if enacted, would be of great benefit to you personally, but you sincerely believed would be detrimental to the interests of the country as a whole, would you support or oppose the passage of that law? If the answer is that you would support it, would you concede that you are being selfish and/or irresponsible?
Also, turn the question around, so that the proposed law is harmful to you personally (in both cases, let's say that any benefit or detriment is strictly financial) but you believe would be beneficial for society as a whole--does that change your answers?
I would vote for the bigger picture. Not just the immediate benefit or detriment for any individual or group, but the long-ranging affects for all.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 03:48:53 PM
I would vote for the bigger picture. Not just the immediate benefit or detriment for any individual or group, but the long-ranging affects for all.
I think he's trying to say you'd be "voting against yourself" then.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 03:35:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2012, 03:29:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 03:23:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2012, 03:08:57 PM
Yeah, and you know what? Everything about the fucking government involves money. Money is single biggest factor in politics because governments run on money rather then say, candy or warm feelings. If they said their major issue was the preserving the one eyed pocket trout the lives in one stream in Utah, it'd involve money.
:huh:
What are you going on about now. What I responded to was when you told dps that the tea party isn't about fiscal responsibility.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2012, 02:05:16 PM
Quote from: dps on October 16, 2012, 01:43:32 PM
Arguments about health care insurance aside, I think Meri is still missing the point that the Tea Party movement is basically about fiscally responsible government, not social issues.
Except it's not.
It's a leap from "Fiscally responsible government" to "involving money". That secret service-hooker scandal "involved money", but only an idiot would think it involved "fiscally responsible government"
I'm sorry that my language was not precise. I meant - if you look at 3 of the 4 items they listed all clearly have to do with fiscal responsibility (though admittedly the economy one less so). And once again that 4th can't really be determined as the label is too vague.
Not really. You were right the first time. They involve money. Only one of the three actually was about "spending". It's not really clear how the New Health care law would affect fiscal responsibility in 2010. So no, most of the Tea Party people weren't not interested in fiscal responsibility in any real concrete sense. They would like a balanced budget cause that sounds good (especially when it involves tax cuts!), but have only the vaguest idea how that might happen. They don't want to cut social security, or medicare, or defense. This makes up the lion's share of the budget. Mostly they want to cute "Waste", or foreign aid.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 16, 2012, 03:50:36 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 03:48:53 PM
I would vote for the bigger picture. Not just the immediate benefit or detriment for any individual or group, but the long-ranging affects for all.
I think he's trying to say you'd be "voting against yourself" then.
Not necessarily. What may be an immediate detriment to me in the short-term may be a better bet for the long-term.
As an example, the topic of same-sex marriage. For the immediate, it can (and has) caused serious upheaval for the majority of the US. However, the long-term affects - equality for all - are worth the initial upheaval. So, under the assumptions, a gay person shouldn't vote for the right to marry because it would be better, overall, for the status quo to hold. Ultimately, however, that would be a negative for society as a whole.
Quote from: dps on October 16, 2012, 03:46:36 PM
I think I've posted on this point before, but I'm not exactly convinced that people should vote in their own best interest. Hypothetical question: if there was a proposed law that, if enacted, would be of great benefit to you personally, but you sincerely believed would be detrimental to the interests of the country as a whole, would you support or oppose the passage of that law? If the answer is that you would support it, would you concede that you are being selfish and/or irresponsible?
Support. :showoff:
Selfish, yes, irresponsible, no. Being irresponsible would be supporting bills that were beneficial in the short term but not the long term.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2012, 03:53:27 PM
Not really. You were right the first time. They involve money. Only one of the three actually was about "spending". It's not really clear how the New Health care law would affect fiscal responsibility in 2010. So no, most of the Tea Party people weren't not interested in fiscal responsibility in any real concrete sense. They would like a balanced budget cause that sounds good (especially when it involves tax cuts!), but have only the vaguest idea how that might happen. They don't want to cut social security, or medicare, or defense. This makes up the lion's share of the budget. Mostly they want to cute "Waste", or foreign aid.
Dps said that such is what they are about - not that they have concrete/great proposals of how to get there.
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2012, 02:08:26 PM
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2012, 01:55:36 PM
Quote from: katmai on October 16, 2012, 01:34:13 PM
Pretty interesting take from a libertarian. @ scips
It's called sarcasm. I understand it's all the rage.
I do know that you can't get pregnant without fucking, barring an act of God.
That's factually incorrect, Amski.
I'm not sure what it brings to the conversation, but it's whatever it does bring, it's also incorrect.
Sorry. Of course, there are all kinds of various artificial regimes for human reproduction, BUT I ASSUMED THAT WE UNDERSTOOD PEOPLE USING BIRTH CONTROL AREN'T TRYING ARTIFICIAL REPRODUCTIVE MEANS, YOU CUNT.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 04:09:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2012, 03:53:27 PM
Not really. You were right the first time. They involve money. Only one of the three actually was about "spending". It's not really clear how the New Health care law would affect fiscal responsibility in 2010. So no, most of the Tea Party people weren't not interested in fiscal responsibility in any real concrete sense. They would like a balanced budget cause that sounds good (especially when it involves tax cuts!), but have only the vaguest idea how that might happen. They don't want to cut social security, or medicare, or defense. This makes up the lion's share of the budget. Mostly they want to cute "Waste", or foreign aid.
Dps said that such is what they are about - not that they have concrete/great proposals of how to get there.
I guess we could also say they are for "peace", and "goodness", and "motherhood", "and not being a zombie" as well, and other vague ideas. In other words they are for nothing.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2012, 04:15:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 04:09:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2012, 03:53:27 PM
Not really. You were right the first time. They involve money. Only one of the three actually was about "spending". It's not really clear how the New Health care law would affect fiscal responsibility in 2010. So no, most of the Tea Party people weren't not interested in fiscal responsibility in any real concrete sense. They would like a balanced budget cause that sounds good (especially when it involves tax cuts!), but have only the vaguest idea how that might happen. They don't want to cut social security, or medicare, or defense. This makes up the lion's share of the budget. Mostly they want to cute "Waste", or foreign aid.
Dps said that such is what they are about - not that they have concrete/great proposals of how to get there.
I guess we could also say they are for "peace", and "goodness", and "motherhood", "and not being a zombie" as well, and other vague ideas. In other words they are for nothing.
Thanks for reminded me why I generally steer clear. :blush:
Quote from: dps on October 16, 2012, 01:43:32 PM
Arguments about health care insurance aside, I think Meri is still missing the point that the Tea Party movement is basically about fiscally responsible government
Odd then that they want to gut revenues.